Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Gordon Brown, former Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, is United Nations Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. He chairs the Advisory Board of the Catalyst Foundation.

Gordon Brown believes Britain would only "reconcile itself to being part of Europe" by "leading, not leaving." As the going gets tough ahead of June 23, Brown tries to steer a sinking ship into a safe harbour. He criticises David Cameron's folly of ever giving in to the Euroskeptics among the Tories and holding this referendum, whose outcome now hangs over Britain's head like a Sword of Damocles.
The author paints a bigger picture of the "conflicting worldviews" of the proponents and opponents. While the rhetoric of Brexit supporters "conjures up the spirit of Dunkirk in 1940 – a nation standing alone, impervious to invading armadas and armies, and always fiercely independent of Europe," the "in" camp has failed to be "fully engaged." Cameron's party is "bitterly divided," with many of its members coming "under fire from a hostile Euroskeptic media" for their campaign. It is "advocating for a half-in, half-out relationship with Europe, and for a Britain that is "semi-detached," doing the whole world a disservice.
Brown's advice for the nation is "a positive, principled, and progressive case for British membership in the EU," and he points out a few "positive arguments" for proponents. Only to "let go of the past," can Britain be able to move forward. It is important for the nation to meet "the needs and aspirations of the British people in the twenty-first century.
But it is difficult to persuade opponents to "acknowledge that the present is defined by globalization, and recognize that the future is filled with opportunity." They are obsessed with their endeavour to regain "control" and forge their own political destiny. They refuse to realise that we live in an "increasingly integrated and interdependent world," and need to cooperate and coordinate more closely with the international community, something that a EU membership offers.
If Britain votes to stay, Brown suggests, it should make use of this opportunity to prove that it could "strike the right balance between the national autonomy that it desires and the international cooperation that it requires." However the voters are too emotional and find themselves torn "between two absolutes: total autonomy," and "complete integration." The former would lead to protectionism and isolationalism - rejecting all cooperation with their "nearest neighbors." A total "integration into a European superstate," is off the table, because Britons cherish "the continuing importance of national identities and decision-making."
Brown believes Britain and Europe can be "more competitive, democratic, and accountable," if Britain would lead the reform agenda and "show that opportunity, fairness, safety, and security can be enhanced in Europe." Having access to Europe's single market, yet staying outside the Eurozone, Britain can create jobs and boost growth, while having the "autonomy to set interest reates." He lays out a list of efforts and services that will bring mutual benefits - from energy efficiency, fair taxation, scientific research to security cooperation. The sharing of intelligence and dealing with terrorism and illegal immigration are most crucial for the moment. If Britain remians, it will assume the EU presidency in 2017, and "advocate for a more cooperative approach to international development and conflict resolution, including a modern European-led Marshall Plan for North Africa and the Middle East."
Brown urges Britons not to forsake the "opportunity to be at the forefront of shaping the next stage of Europe’s development, saying they have finally found "a role that suits /their/ sense of destiny" that they have been searching for the "last, post-imperial half-century." Its "special relationship with America" will even be more valuable "through active engagement" with the EU and NATO.

The British should be aware that the referendum is not about money nor trade but it is really on the issues of legitimation (whether you want to be ruled by a foreign bureaucracy that is neither bound by constitution nor by law or you want to rule yourself via democratically legitimated representatives) and of nation (whether your nation shall be merged into Europe in the sense that Timermans announced or your nation shall stay reconizable, i.e. whether you want to have your borders controlled by the "EU" or you want to control your borders yourself).

You should be aware that ultimately you have to answer the same question as the Hungarians whether the "EU" bodies should have the power to force a member state into accepting quotas of migrants and refugees against the decision of the Hungarian parliament (bureaucracy vs. democracy, amalgamation vs. nation).

And you should be aware that you have the rare chance to be asked at all and that you could speak out loud for all the rest of us who are not asked (like the French and the Dutch did in 2006) and who want the "EU" to be destroyed so that democracy, the separation of powers and the rule of law can be reinstalled.

But as Henry Ford used to say; "Don't tell me what you can do, show me what you have done."

And we've seen what EU membership has done for the UK. Some of it quite good I must admit.

But that doesn't mean that better couldn't happen if the UK 'left' the European Union.

"But there's no proof of that."

"Oh yes, there is."

Norway maintains adequate relations with the EU and it has the largest sovereign fund on the planet, valued at over $1.3 trillion dollars (and rising) and it has among the lowest Debt-to-GDP in the world, it ranks #1 on the Social Progress Index, it always ranks #3 or #4 on the UN Happiness Index, it is #1 on per capita income, among the highest productivity levels on the Earth (with low R&D spending yet!) it also has one of the best healthcare systems in the world ranked at #7, and citizens there are entitled to a free university education (which leads me to my next and related point) Norway has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And so much more... that tiny snapshot doesn't begin to cover it.

As Henry Ford might say, 'That's showing them how it's done.'

And all that, without joining the European Union and all of it done with ZERO drama.

"There is no bad weather, only bad clothing." -- A Scandinavian proverb that tells us everything we need to know about how they cope with adverse conditions.

There is no excuse good enough, that the UK couldn't match every one of those Norwegian stats.

In fact, that's where the UK should've been all along.

If tiny Norway with 5 million citizens and mostly covered by impenetrable mountains and glaciers, and with a (barely) medium-sized petroleum resource can do all that without EU membership -- then the UK should be able to match or exceed Norway's stellar accomplishments.

I could make a similar comparison in regards to the Swiss example. Without EU membership, a tiny landmass -- again, mostly covered with impenetrable mountains and glaciers -- and no real resource base, the Swiss have excelled beyond all imagining.

I feel the UK should 'Leave'.
It should dramatically strengthen ties with other Commonwealth nations, all of them should institute a 1% Tobin Tax, and each Commonwealth nation should invest in other Commonwealth nation economies first, before going outside the bloc to invest.

The UK should also harmonize its economic, social, education, health, and defense policies with Norway and other Scandinavian nations, and also extend a warm invite to all Scandinavian nations to join the Commonwealth of Nations.

Southern Europe is already a German/French show, nothing will change that, and they are severely bogged down for the next decade with (southern European) internal problems.

Northern Europe could bloom however, by simply copying Norwegian policies and by strengthening the Commonwealth and each individual nation within the Commonwealth.

All we need is a Winston Churchill, or a Henry Ford, or a Steve Jobs to lead it!

@John
My experience has always been that it is easier to destroy a house than build it. Brexit inevitably involves destruction and assuming positive outcomes can easily balance destruction is both unknown and optomistic. Furthermore as was shown in the lead up to Brexit amongst the 27 EU states there will always be some that argue against any change that does not suit them. Brexit if it occurs will trigger uncertainity which is toxic for an economy and it is a stone cold certainty UK GDP will drop and some multinationals relocate from or avoid new investment in whole or part

As broadly speaking Remain and Leave have balance it should make anybodies blood run cold that the outcome will in all likelihood be determined by 'dont knows', people who by their own definiton dont have any firm opinion

The good news for Brexiteers is that the EU needs British imports just as much after Brexit, as they do now. And the Brits will need to continue to have access to the EU, much as they do now.

The EU and the UK could simply copy the agreement that Norway has with the EU and trade between the two entities would continue unabated -- because it absolutely has to -- as EU consumers will demand continued access to British goods and services.

And British consumers and business will demand continued access to EU goods and services.

On both sides, the people and business will override the politicians, in order to continue a healthy trade relationship.

The only real change will be increased sovereignty for the UK and more control over immigration to the UK.

Not only do I view it as a win for the Brits, but also for the EU, which can then fully concentrate on fixing their internal (southern European) problems.

I see problems with an exit on two fronts. 1 The EU provides a tech culture which most of the Commonwealth does not and sophisticated product or service is the way froward. 2 The biggest export market for the UK is the EU which is on its doorstep. I consider an exit a massive risk as it means disrupting exisitng trade relationships on the assumption they can be replaced

@Jagjeet

Scotland is a unusual culture. Its roots were always with sea trade with Scandinavia and the continent and in many respects it was closer to them than England. The sea was the highway. Wales also had this continental connection with very close sea trade with France, Brittany in particular. Wales however suffered from the Plague more than Scotland - brought in by the same sea trade and never really recovered its economic strength. Both Scotland and Wales nationalists maintain an uneasy relation with England and I think it is fair to say detest Englands numerical dominance. As I understand it though I am open to correction - Both Wales and Scotland from the act of Union in 1707 have continually recieved money from England other than the brief period of N Sea Oil which may well be coming to a close with Oil prices low and projections low. Scotland is welcome to Gordon Brown

The European Commonwealth - given Scotland's convictions in maintaining European ties - would primarily consist of the Scandinavians, or enlarged to all English-speaking Europeans. And Edinburgh best suited for HQ - with Gordon Brown as the First President. Since Brussels unable to fulfil its responsibilities as Europe's HQ. Together with the traditional Commonwealth, perhaps better described as The New Anglosphere.

Liked your ideas JBS, the first time you suggested this a few months ago on PS.

Please, Britons, don't leave Europe! It will cost you a lot of pounds! Imagine the huge cost of acquiring the equivalent surface – say – in Asia, even if land in Asia is cheaper than in Europe.
Then imagine the cost of moving trough thousand and thousand miles such quantity of soil, rivers, lakes, hills, buildings, castles, roads, persons, cows, dogs and cats, donkeys and horses, Kings and Queens, and so on. And, I'm wondering, by means of what? Ships? Planes? Trains? Horse-drawn carriages? You will pay a lot of pounds in tickets!
So please, Britons, let UK stay in Europe, don't move to a different continent!

This article must have broken all records as to the number of commentaries on it that were deleted by PS. Although PS can delete and interfere in the commentaries, one thing is for certain, history has been written, and it cannot be reversed or concealed by no one or from any one.

I think the increasing interdependence, as GB puts it, is one of the most crucial issues in the politics of this century. We need more and more supranational agreements, institutions, and actions. EU is an attempt to build this in a democratic way among relatively similar countries, and you see how slow and hard is the process. What I miss in anti-EU (or nativist, more broadly) rhetorics, is how else can we solve this central issue? How can UK (or whoever) bring back the powers while making new international agreements that already by definition mean delegating the very same powers away? Even more, how can you ensure the new institutions are more democratic than EU?

Read Gordon Brown's article with great interest. I don't see us leading the EU, full engagement will never have that effect, but unlike the former Prime Minister, I could see us effectively engaging with the EU, should we vote leave. Germany leads the EU and I don't believe that will ever change in the present situation A leave vote would institute a political realignment between the UK and the EU, Parliament would be paramount as AEP says, and the possibility of a trading partnership beneficial to all could arise. If the UK were so important to the EU, why wasn't a better deal offered? And a leave vote doesn't have to be dramatic. The treaty lays down what happens. Donald Tusk says negotiation could be done within the two year period and if Germany approved the new relationship, it could be quickly confirmed. The UK could be a trading member pushing forward the single market. If there is a leave vote, those few days after the referendum result, will be golden days in the run up to the heads of government summit.

It is interesting to note that a number of prominent leave advocates have recently started to talk up the possibility of EEA membership.. The same people rejected this option at the start of the campaign. I think it is beginning to dawn on them just how important access to the single market is for the UK. Unfortunately, the EEA route would put us in the worse position than we are in at the moment. We would still have free movement and be bound by much of the law of the EU, but would have lost nearly all our influence, with the danger that the EU becomes less economically liberal. I agree with Gordon Brown, and with the the economic correspondent of the Sunday Times (David Smith) who has concluded an excellent series of articles with the message: the EU has been good for the UK and we would be mad to leave it. Indeed it has; and indeed we would.

At a small place in Scotland on the 6th of April 1320 a Declaration was made asserting the right to be an independent sovereign nation. Why, some 696 years later would anyone not want sovereignty for their country? The English on the 30th January 1649 executed a king because he would not agree to a constitutional monarchy where Parliament was supreme. Why, some 367 years later would we want to make our Parliament subservient to another unelected/unaccountable body?
My point is the freedoms we gained centuries ago, often after bitter conflict, were not in the hands of Politicians to give away willi-nilly. Those freedoms belong to the people of Britain and their permission was never sought when our Leaders gave them away. In 1975 the people were asked if they wanted to stay in the Common Market. I was never told that by agreeing to do so I was giving away my birthright When we were promised a referendum by Labour on the further transfer of powers they reneged. David Cameron has kept his pledge and I intend to vote out.
Not beause I am a "little Englander" as Mr Brown seems to imply when he states that "Because “Leave” voters view globalization as a liability, they look for protection and insulation, demanding that “control” be brought back home." But because I remember that in 1973, to our eternal shame, we turned our back on those very Commonwealth countries that had, twice, stood by Britain in our, and Europe's. hours of need. Britain should look to the world, not as we once did when building an empire, but to forge relationships. We do not need to be EU members to do that. We are already members of the Commonwealth with a potential market four times the size of Europe. Let us make better use of our contacts there and around the world. Let us think globally rather than tie ourselves to a small continent.
Why, if we do vote to leave, will it mean that we cannot cooperate, willingly, with the rEU in those areas where we see a need? Yes this includes the environment, fair taxation and security but why restrict it to Europe? We are a member of the "Five Eyes" group made up of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and the USA but are not required to give up sovereignty to do so. Cooperation as sovereign nations is the way ahead.

The Five Eyes and The Commonwealth - both will be happiest for Britain not to eschew Europe.
Every time Britain has left Europe - the attempts to forge Federal Europe has ended in tears.
The European membership secured in 1975 unfortunately has morphed - and the EU in its current version now a monster.
Just like Canada remains linked to America, Britain must remain linked to Europe - Sovereignty does not need dissolution.
NATO or The Five Eyes or The Commonwealth does not require the dissolution of Sovereign Nations.

Britain had secured Europe on similar terms in 1975 - perhap the ShangriLa in the current predicament.
But if there is a core EZ that wishes to create a majority bloc within to hijack the agenda - there are several responses.
Building a bloc that neutralized the EZ bloc or including NATO members within an enlarged West Bloc - without loss of Sovereignty.
But an outright departure - represents a Trump kinda response that can stir a surefire meltdown.

Sagacity requires measured judgment - not in the heat of the hour, but rather calculated wisdom staying within Europe.
The Five Eyes and Europe together had forged an idyllic Destination for 70 years - easy to destroy, difficult to build.
London was not built in a day.

Unless on 23 June - Judgment delivers Departure once again to secure the Destination.

Immigration, or too much of it, is an issue for many in the UK, including some immigrants. It is Labour that helped brew this storm up when in power encouraging immigration, not taking the steps Germany did at that time to slow EU movement. Then ridiculing a woman on-microphone as a bigot instead of recognising a real anxiety.

Personally I do not want a 'special relationship' with the US and as far as NATO goes it is about time other particiapants in that show, other than the US did more. As for the ever growing EU, strangely enough, enough is enough. Where does this bizarre idea come from that the EU should ever expand. Has anybody bothered to ask the voters? The Dutch said No but the desire is still to ignore them. Where is this arrogance coming from you that you believe we - the UK - should lead everybody. I beleive people should self determine and therefore own their decisions and outcomes. Leadership if it occurs should be a natural outcome, not a sought and aspired role